Replies

Because health care would be rationed, Healthcare is rationed now by people whose bottom line depends upon them paying out as little as possible. So I don't see how that's a valid criticism of a single-payer system.

and there would be almost nothing spent on innovation.

That's not true

Over time most of us would be worse off.

That's not true either

That's not true

This is not proof that going to a government run, single payer system will improve innovation. It's simply evidence that, here in the US, we are already doing things to destroy innovation.

We don't really have free market forces driving our health care system. Government already runs 50% of our spending... and, new taxes are driving the medical device business elsewhere.

Do you really believe, that if we had a system here where people actually PAID for their own health care, that we wouldn't also be gravitating toward "faster, better, cheaper"??

What we have is, people sitting at home watching commercials for a FREE electric chair.. "Medicare will pay ALL the cost!".

That's a good article.. thanks for the link. But to me, it only highlites things we are doing wrong.

I believe, High Deductible Health Savings plans are our best path forward. They already HAVE bent the cost curve down. Incredibly so in my company. Apply something like this to Medicare??? And watch our health care costs come tumbling down.

That's not true either

Also an interesting article, but completely irrelevant. People in Sweden, overall, are healthier than people in the US, overall...THAT is all this article shows. But, that is NOT proof that their health care system is better. There are MANY other important, highly correlated variables.

For starters, their population is extremely homogenous. They eat healthier, excercise far more, live in a heathier environment, don't eat the same crappy food we do, and don't have nearly as much economic stratification in their society.

I think THIS is a far better measure of who has the best health system:

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country

(sorry.... my HTML skills are limited)

I also judge by: Where do the world's super-weathy go to get health care treatment.

They come here, not Iceland.

Healthcare is rationed now by people whose bottom line depends upon them paying out as little as possible. So I don't see how that's a valid criticism of a single-payer system.

Healthcare is a finite resource and will always be rationed, or allocated, according to something.

The question is, would you prefer the government consifcate your money via taxes and also make the decisions as to who gets what care ? That's rationing by government, or single-payer. To have the enforced purchase of the product via taxation, also allocated by the provider is a situation ripe for abuse. Such a monopoly wouldn't be allowed in any other industry.

Would you rather have medical professionals offer their services on the free market to those who can afford them? That's rationing by free market. Individuals purchase directly from providers to the limit of their purchasing power. This option requires that purchasers make the rationing decision, and is the only option that preserves the liberty of the individual.

Would you rather be forced into buying a certian type of insurance that your government thinks you ought to have, and/or fined if you can't afford it, and also have the government decide who gets/doesn't get care? That's rationing by Obamacare bureaucracy. It's the worst of all worlds.